NCAA Change the Tourney

[Rover]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

I don't see how any of this improves over the regional set up now. People need to realize that lower attendance (and I'd like to see the figures if somebody has them handy) is most likely reflective of the economy, particularly in hard hit places like Michigan. Also add bad seedings like sending BC to St. Louis this year. Going back to 12 teams is a really bad idea, I don't care how basketball does it. Getting to the tournament drums up interest. With 12 teams and 6 conferences you're most likely giving up the auto bid, so it'll be all HE, WCHA and CCHA teams. I don't think its a bad thing that an expanded tournament can allow more ECAC and AHA teams to make the tourney and make some noise. Now I'm not advocating more than 16 before somebody stuffs and props up that strawman, but unless college hockey contracts considerably the ship on the 12 team tournament has sailed.

College hockey, like pro hockey, is a gate receipt league. It lives by how many people show up. Start restricting fan access and interest will drop accordingly. On the flip side sometimes extra exposure works. Over the years, schools are filling bigger arenas, TV coverage has increased, the tournament sells out NHL arenas, and fewer programs are on a death watch. Given that obvious growth in interest in the sport, lets give the regionals a little more time and make some smaller changes (and wait out the recession) before blowing the whole thing up.

[slurpees]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

I don't see how any of this improves over the regional set up now. People need to realize that lower attendance (and I'd like to see the figures if somebody has them handy) is most likely reflective of the economy, particularly in hard hit places like Michigan. Also add bad seedings like sending BC to St. Louis this year. Going back to 12 teams is a really bad idea, I don't care how basketball does it. Getting to the tournament drums up interest. With 12 teams and 6 conferences you're most likely giving up the auto bid, so it'll be all HE, WCHA and CCHA teams. I don't think its a bad thing that an expanded tournament can allow more ECAC and AHA teams to make the tourney and make some noise. Now I'm not advocating more than 16 before somebody stuffs and props up that strawman, but unless college hockey contracts considerably the ship on the 12 team tournament has sailed.

College hockey, like pro hockey, is a gate receipt league. It lives by how many people show up. Start restricting fan access and interest will drop accordingly. On the flip side sometimes extra exposure works. Over the years, schools are filling bigger arenas, TV coverage has increased, the tournament sells out NHL arenas, and fewer programs are on a death watch. Given that obvious growth in interest in the sport, lets give the regionals a little more time and make some smaller changes (and wait out the recession) before blowing the whole thing up.

Agreed on everything. Ticket prices and sales should be adjusted. Lower the prices a bit, and open up single day ticket sales far sooner than the day before the game. Stop hosting regionals in dumb places like St. Louis and Fort Wayne that are either nowhere near a college team, or that are incredibly hard to get to. The only non-college site I could see a regional having some success at would be Chicago, if there's an arena in the city or close suburbs (not the hour drive away one where the ND tournament is) that holds 8-10,000. The city is so centrally located to the western teams and easy to get to, plus the abundance of people in the area as compared to a place like STL that it might be worth a shot. The eastern sites are fine so long as they stick with Bridgeport, Worcester, Manchester, and maybe try out Hartford and Providence. Manchester and Bridgeport each had 7,500+ for all games this weekend, which is about all you can expect for regionals, and would be considered a great crowd at a regular season home game. No need to go around making sweeping changes to the tournament that would have a direct effect on the games in order to accommodate fans. At the end of the day, the most important thing is maintaining the integrity of the competition on the ice, not instituting gimmick tournament structures or travel schedules to get another 1,000 fans and have to go head to head against the Final Four weekend in the process.

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

@Rover

In 2008 (last regionals before the market collapse and unemployment spike), the Western regionals' championship attendance was all right, but the Eastern regionals were depressing. The success on the Western side was a function of Wisconsin playing on home ice and the Western regional being held at a smaller campus rink.

Northeast (Worcester)
BC-Miami (5900)

East (Albany)
Michigan-Clarkson (4300)

Midwest (Madison)
Wisconsin-North Dakota (9800)

West (Colo Springs)
Notre Dame-MSU (5800)

Set aside the number of teams for a moment. If these numbers are normal (and I bet they are), what this tells us is that the 2nd day of a 4-team regional is basically hostage to whether a "home" team is still playing. That's what happens when there is only one game that day. Lots of people will leave. Contrast that to the 2nd day of the old super-regionals (which sent 2 teams to the Frozen Four), when attendance at Worcester was typically well north of 10,000.

We'll agree to disagree on tournament size. But maybe I can still convince you that a 4-team, 3-game regional is almost destined to fail unless it looks like that 2008 Midwestern regional.

[Farce Poobah]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Here's a couple of other suggestions.

First, don't play all the games at the same time. The current setup makes it impossible for the dedicated hardcore fan to actually see the entire tournament, which leads to the "I will just watch my boys" factor. Changing schedules just a little would make it possible for these fans to NOT have to choose between watching "my boys" or a regional that's within a couple hours' drive. (Couple years ago, regional at Mariucci and the Sioux playing at the same time elsewhere ... I chose to watch the Sioux ... loss of ticket sales for NC$$.)

So, for example: 4 games Saturday to kick off the regionals (1030, 200, 530, 900 EDT), 4 games Sunday, 2 Finals Monday (530 and 900 EDT), 2 Finals Tuesday. (Or if we are sticking with 6 games Saturday, then let's not put semifinal games up against regional finals!) Another alternative would be 4 games Friday, 4 games Saturday, 4 regional finals Sunday.

(Note: the day-between is standard for NCAA basketball, and I think hockey should have it likewise. I realize back-to-back just helped my squad beat Denver, but I don't like fatigue from a prior game becoming a determining factor in games this important.

A second benefit of this is more time between conference tournaments and NCAA .... may make the conference tournaments more meaningful.

Second, consider giving "priority points" to regional attendees. Go the Regional and get priority points toward your Frozen Four tickets. And vice versa.

Third, all the conferences need to get together and submit combined hosting bids ... the primary benefit of this is to keep the top-seeded conference team near home. Catering to fans of the top seeds, who are the most enthusiastic and likely to attend, is a surefire way to sell tickets. (IF there's a way to give students a break on prices, that doesn't open up some crazy resale loophole, even better.)

Fourth, seat "fan sections" in prime TV viewing spaces, not the traditional "dump them in the corners" routine. At least make it look interesting on TV.

[Rover]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

amherstblackbear,

I'm more in a wait and see mode on the regionals. Farce posted some sensible tweaks that I'd like to try before taking more drastic action. I think a few other non-economy things haven't helped either. First is BC fatigue in the East. Even talking to their fans they're taking the regionals for granted, while teams like UNH are expecting to crap out. Teams like Maine and BU who could draw well in the East regionals haven't been regular participants unfortunately, and Merrimac or any ECAC team can't be expected to make up that difference. Second and maybe more important is TV coverage. Really at this point in the East you can probably just catch the game from the comfort of your own home. In this regard I think they do need to drop ticket prices considerably, because fans now have an alternative to seeing the game live. This is a problem with most spectator sports, and I'm not sure what the answer is.

But I do share your concern. St. Louis was a big mistake but hopefully they'll learn from it, just like the NCAA's learned not to put the FF in Cincinnatti ever again!

[Patman]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Agreed on everything. Ticket prices and sales should be adjusted. Lower the prices a bit, and open up single day ticket sales far sooner than the day before the game. Stop hosting regionals in dumb places like St. Louis and Fort Wayne that are either nowhere near a college team, or that are incredibly hard to get to. The only non-college site I could see a regional having some success at would be Chicago, if there's an arena in the city or close suburbs (not the hour drive away one where the ND tournament is) that holds 8-10,000. The city is so centrally located to the western teams and easy to get to, plus the abundance of people in the area as compared to a place like STL that it might be worth a shot. The eastern sites are fine so long as they stick with Bridgeport, Worcester, Manchester, and maybe try out Hartford and Providence. Manchester and Bridgeport each had 7,500+ for all games this weekend, which is about all you can expect for regionals, and would be considered a great crowd at a regular season home game. No need to go around making sweeping changes to the tournament that would have a direct effect on the games in order to accommodate fans. At the end of the day, the most important thing is maintaining the integrity of the competition on the ice, not instituting gimmick tournament structures or travel schedules to get another 1,000 fans and have to go head to head against the Final Four weekend in the process.

one of the bigger problems for the sport is that it does make money that's needed to fund all the other tournaments in the NCAA... if you cut the prices (it was $30 for 4 games in 1993) then the fans will come and it will build up the sport.... but it would probably take away from the overall $$$. I think in this case I can see a matter of priorities... $$$ is necessary to fund the tournaments.

Generally though, the prices the NCAA set for these things are outright nuts... to the point where you need local teams in place in order to do well for attendance.

You know, I haven't yet been to a four team regional... but the six team ones seemed to be like a celebration more than anything else with all those schools plus the local fans... that's my experience from 93, 97, 99, 01, 02, and 03 in worcester (not sure on all my dates)... yes, i get it, everybody here thinks the centrum is a hole... whatever. The 6 team regionals always had some excitement and they filled the building very well. Would be nice to get that back at some point.

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

You and me both, Patman.

I'll take a superregional at Worcester over a miniregional at some sparkling new rink every day of the week. Those things were just plain fun. And it *was*like a mini Frozen Four experience, seeing people (and hockey sweaters) from all over.

[HockeyMan2000]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Patman and Amherstblackbear -- I'm with you guys entirely on what the regionals USED to be like. I stopped going when they expanded to 4 sites as well. IMO two sites is more of a draw to both casual fans (more games, more of an event) and the hard-core types like us. If you're going to make the pre-Frozen Four NCAA games fun you need to pack as much excitement and value into the event as possible. Spreading out the regionals, taking a game away from what you saw before (in the 2 site regional format you saw half the field advance to the Frozen Four; now only a quarter of the field), and yet charging the same (or higher!) for tickets as the NCAA did when they expanded to 4 sites detracted from the event's overall value. It's the main reason I stopped going in fact.

That said, I think if they're going to stick with the current system they have to be smarter about the locations (axe St. Louis and anywhere else like it) and probably start seeding teams with less "bracket integrity" in mind (a farce anyway when host schools, often undeservedly, get to stay home) and more of a reliance on keeping teams more in their respective regions (within reason). The 2-site, 12-team format had so much more excitement associated with it, as it was mostly regional teams with a couple of the best teams from the "other side" (East/West) coming in to battle in a hostile environment...and the atmosphere was so much more than most of these 4 site regionals has been able to generate.

I likewise agree with Amherstblackbear entirely on the general issues involved with a 3-game, 4-site regional format. The second day is going to always be entirely held hostage by the teams playing in it. Folks will go home who lost the first day and unless you have a local team in the second, attendance is going to be mediocre typically or worse.

One way or another, it needs to be fixed, and I'm betting it will.

[Craig P.]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

The fact that there are so many "power" teams (as you describe them) is a good thing, in my view. I see a 12-team field with 10-11 power teams as an improvement on a 16-team field with . . . 10-11 power teams.

Why?
Because those extra at-larges don't bring anything to the table. They make their fanbases happy, but their effect is a net negative.

Why?
Because a regional with 4-6 power teams is indescribably more appealing than a regional with 1-3 power teams.

You're exactly right that hoops and hockey are different. It's for that very reason that I'm not overly concerned with maximizing the number of happy-to-be-theres. To even approximate the situation in basketball, we'd have to open the hockey tournament to every D1 team.

I guess we've reached the point of irreconcileable differences, then. I will not consider less than about 1/3 "power" to at-large bids to be acceptable, and this is an argument that I was making back when the tournament was still only 12 teams. That 1/3 ratio is about the ratio in basketball, it's about the ratio in hockey now, and I think it's about the sweet spot balancing quality of teams in the tournament and accessibility.

[Craig P.]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

who are the non power teams , Only ecac and aha teams? Was UNH not a power team due to being a #4 seed this year?

No, only AHA. AHA teams are not, absent an exceptional season, playing for an at-large bid. They need to not only win almost all of their conference games, but also have an excellent out of conference record as well.

In contrast, pretty much any team in the other four conferences can get a very good shot at an at-large bid by finishing in the top three with a solid out-of-conference record.

The ECAC has flirted a little with the power/non-power line, but they're pretty solid this season with the #1 overall seed, a #2 seed, and three teams overall in the tournament.

[Craig P.]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Yeah, given the play of AFA and of course RIT of late, there is no "happy to be there". The AHA (and the CHA before folding) have proven they can play with the elite, auto-bid or not.

Obviously, it's a phrase that's somewhat lacking as a descriptive, but I'm not sure what else to call them. Maybe mid-major, though I've always thought of that as more referring to the conferences like the CAA in basketball which aren't the major conferences but also tend to get themselves a second (sometimes third) bid. That's not AHA. AHA is more like the one-bid conferences, albeit one where that one bid has developed a history of being frisky.

Maybe just "non-power" as an opposite to "power", or something like that. I do think that there's an important distinction to be made between the four conferences that regularly place multiple at-large teams in the tournament and AHA, which regularly places its champion in the tournament, who would usually not qualify for an at-large selection had they not gotten their auto-bid.

[Roben]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but to get some more money made by filling those empty seats, they should release the tickets that haven't been sold yet a few hours before game time and sell them at a deeply discounted rate. Granted, some people may have bought them and not gone, however, doing such a thing would get people in the arena, buying food and drinks, which I'm sure gets the NC$$ some sort of money, and it puts more butts in the seats, and looks better on TV. Someone flipping through on the TV probably isn't going to stick around long for the game if they 1. dont know what it is, 2. know the importance, and 3. dont see the lower bowl filled more. They'll think it's something not too important, and will pass on it.

Same sort of thing for bouncy ball with the tickets, however, everyone knows what it is with all the coverage it gets.

[CLS]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

. . .

Second, consider giving "priority points" to regional attendees. Go the Regional and get priority points toward your Frozen Four tickets. And vice versa.

. . .

Now that's an interesting idea that I've never seen before. The first time I attended a regional was to "buy" my way into the Albany FF, and I've been to several regionals since because I had a great time at the regional (other than a dreadful hotel, but that was the hotel's fault, not Albany's). And yeah, I did like the "super-regional" format and wish that it could be repeated, but not at the expense of going back to 12.

[Kepler]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

Straight seed 1-16, play round one best of 3 at better seeds; reseed for the second round and repeat. Great for attendance, rewards teams for performance, ends the absurdity of worse seeds hosting better seeds, lessens the impact of one bad night (or one bad call).

Straight seeding would allow an east-west mix sometimes and a more road fan friendly intra-conference match-up sometimes. The criteria would be hockey-based, jettisoning all the geographic-economic garbage they factor in now.

I don't know how travel expenses are paid for now but I'd create a common pool paid into by all the D-1 programs pro-rated by their revenue.

[amherstblackbear]

Re: NCAA Change the Tourney

There's a proposal I can't get behind: eliminating regionals entirely *and* eliminating the one and done that makes the current tournament exciting. Maybe for the first round. Maybe. But I can't support "best of" all the way to the Frozen Four. :\

Better off, I think, to have the 2nd round in one-day Eastern and Western regionals, with 2 games each. Sure some of the fans of the losing team in game 1 will leave, but not all. And many fans of the team that wins game 1 will stick around for game 2 because (a) they've already paid for it and (b) they're curious to see who the opponent will be in the FF.